N. PALANISWAMY Vs. RAMASWAMY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are appeals preferred against the common order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore dated 12th March, 1979 disposing of Claim Petitions Nos. 173, 293 and 321 of 1978. There was an accident on 13.5.1978 with regard to a tractor and trailer bearing registration No. MDF 6402 and 6403 respectively in which one Kathavarayan and Subramaniam were traveling and they died as a result of the accident. The deceased Kathavarayan left behind his mother Chinnaponnu Ammal, the Petitioner in claim petition No. 174 of 1978, his father, Ramaswamy, the first Petitioner in Claim Petition No. 293 of 1978, three brothers and two sisters to be educated and married respectively. Subramaniam died leaving behind him his wife and a minor daughter, Petitioners 1 and 2 in Claim Petition No. 321 of 1978. The Tribunal after considering the materials placed before it, held that the driver of the vehicle was guilty of rash and negligent driving, and the accident was due to the said rash and negligent driving. He fixed the compensation payable to the mother and father of Kathavarayan at Rs. 11,000/ - to be divided equally as between the two. He fixed the compensation payable to the widow and the minor daughter of Subramaniam at Rs. 25,000/ - from which the widow was held to be entitled to Rs. 14,000/ - and the minor daughter to the balance, namely, Rs. 11,000/ -. It is against the award in these three Petitioners, the present appeals have been filed.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant, having regard to the evidence of P.W.3 did not challenge the finding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question. But he contended that the exoneration of the insurance company by the Tribunal was not correct and that the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal was also excessive.

(3.) WITH regard to the quantum, the only point that was brought to our notice was that when the Tribunal dealt with the duration of dependency of the father and the mother of Kathavarayan, it said that they would live upto 65 years, while when it came to determine the earning age of the deceased Subramaniam, the Tribunal took that to be only as 55 years, and there is an inconsistency between the two. As far as the Tribunal determining the period of dependency in the case of Kathavarayan is concerned, we are unable to see any error in fixing the age at 65 having regard to longevity of persons in this country just now. If so, the Tribunal can be said to have committed an error in holding that Subramaniam would have lived upto 55 years. That error is in favour of the Appellant and not against the Appellant. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with two awards of the Tribunal even on the basis of the second contention put forward by the Appellant. Hence the appeals are dismissed.